Language Teaching and Language
Technology is a selection of papers presented at a conference organized
at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands) in 1997. The introduction
to the volume provides the reader with an enticing, yet controversial, argument
for an increased focus on the capabilities of language technologies for second
language teaching. Jager, Nerbonne, and van Essen distinguish between language
technology, or technology specifically designed for language-related tasks,
and non-language technology. The former includes speech recognition
and synthesis, lemmatization, syntactic categorization, vocabulary extraction,
parsing, and text generation. In contrast, non-language technology includes
hypertext, digital audio and video, database technology, and networked communication.
The editors claim "that existing CALL program and packages seemed to make
little use of language technology" (p. 1) and thus, the goal of the conference
was for the L2 teaching profession to evaluate the potential usefulness of
such technology for the purpose of improving language teaching. They argue
that the use of language technology is not only useful for the assessment
of language-based applications, but also justified because "phonological and
morphological descriptions of many languages are quite complete--and massively
more reliable than the analyses of most language teachers, so that their accuracy
cannot be the stumbling block to effective CALL" (p. 2). The editors accept,
however, that from a pedagogical perspective, "÷it is not the technology per
se, but the contribution it might make to teaching and learning that determines
its usefulness for CALL." Nevertheless, despite the avowed goal of bringing
together capabilities of language technology and CALL pedagogy, the present
volume appears to focus more on the former than the latter.

Most papers in this volume address
technological features of Intelligent CALL (ICALL) programs to a larger extent
than the teaching-learning dimension of the process. For instance, Carlson-Berndsen
("Computational Autosegmental Phonology in Pronunciation Teaching") describes
a multimedia tool which models articulatory movements (with animated line
drawings) to teach pronunciation in L2 German. The avowed pedagogical goal
of Carlson-Berndsen is "to demonstrate to the learner the difference between
the articulatory setting of the native tongue and the foreign tongue" (p.
14). The author motivates the proposed use of the computer-based program with
the assertion that "a paper-oriented approach to pronunciation teaching÷(is)
non-interactive and clearly cannot achieve the same visual synthesis as the
computer-aided approach." This notion that feedback can lead to improved pronunciation,
however, is not without controversy. Previous studies that incorporated the
provision of sophisticated levels of feedback did not obtain the pedagogical
effects expected by Carlson-Berndsen. For instance, Flege (1989) experimentally
investigated the effect of visual feedback (on tongue position) provided to
a Spanish speaker for the purpose of improving pronunciation of English vowels.
Flege's results, however, were less than promising, as the analysis of the
data revealed that the changes may have occurred not because of the visual
feedback per se, but "simply as the result of focusing attention on vowel
production" (p. 400). Moreover, Flege points out that in his study--as well
as others--no claim can be made about the generalization of training to untrained
items or conversational (i.e., less monitored) speech.

Other papers that also focus
on various types of feedback provided by language technologies reflect similar
limitations insofar as the analysis of the pedagogical effectiveness of the
program is concerned. For instance, Hu, Hopkins, and Phinney ("Native English
Writing Assistant: A CALL Product for English Reading and Writing") describe
a grammar checker called the Native English Writing Assistant which functions
as "an add-on product that integrates seamlessly with popular word-processors
and Internet browsers" (p. 95). The writing assistant identifies errors in
non-native speakers' writing by means of matching error patterns with a database
(developed through analysis of corpus research). Hu et al. argue that their
program is effective because "it provides specific correction alternatives
that are easy to understand such as 'Use apologize to ÷,' as opposed to 'This
verb cannot take an object.'" That is, the assistant provides more extended
functional explanations that may help the writer better understand the need
for the suggested changes. The pedagogical relevance of the writing-assistant
tutor, however, is not supported with empirical evidence to substantiate the
above-mentioned argument.

- 23 -

A few contributions do focus
on the pedagogical opportunities provided by recent technological developments
that allow for the fast and seamless integration of various media (speech
recognition and synthesis, text analysis, video scripting, etc.). For instance,
Borchardt ("For, Against, for the Development and Dissemination of CALL")
describes how the emergence of Web technologies allows for the rapid development
and implementation of principled-based applications of CALL. More importantly,
Borchardt claims that internet-based technologies bring about opportunities
for more natural use of language than was ever afforded by previous CALL programs:
"authentic-like materials simply work better in the classroom than disconnected
utterances which illustrate, however transparently, some grammatical rule
rather than a meaning" (p. 219). Along similar lines, Rothenberg ("The New
Face of Distance Learning in Language Instruction") outlines the advantages
of Web-based language courses for L2 acquisition (e.g., well-coordinated visual
and aural information, more interesting and interactive games). Rothenberg,
justifies the design of a Web-based language course which does not provide
for learner-learner interaction as follows: "we feel that in a beginning language
class there is little pedagogical benefit obtained from student interaction
and collaboration" (p.148). Few L2 researchers, however, would support such
argument. In fact, most current research in second language teaching emphasizes
the pedagogical advantages of functional linguistic interaction starting with
the very first stages of acquisition (e.g., Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Long
& Robinson, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Willis, 1996). To be fair,
although Rothenberg denies the pedagogical benefits of interacting with other
learners, he does argue in favor of interaction with native speakers, and
such interaction is a component of the Web-based language course he describes.
However, it is inherently limiting--both functionally and pedagogically--to
restrict communication to native speaking groups only. Finally, in some papers,
the authors focus on the pedagogical advantages of strictly non-language technology.
For instance, Holliday ("The Grammar of Second Language Learners of English
EMAIL Messages") describes the benefits of using e-mail for pedagogical purposes.
Most important, Holliday claims that "by far the most reliable and robust
use of the Internet for language learning is still e-mail" (i.e., non-language
technology) (p. 136).

In sum, despite the editors'
claim that the current technological sophistication of language-specific software
allows for the development of more useful and powerful language learning programs,
the papers in this volume do not yet provide a compelling argument. As argued
above, the assessment and successful implementation of pedagogical capabilities
of new language technologies should follow the establishment of principled
pedagogical objectives. The value of Language Teaching and Language Technology,
however, lies in the fact that it highlights an area of research which has
received little attention and which--justifiably--is starting to be further
emphasized. For instance, Ehsani and Knodt (1998, p. 47) echo Jager et al.'s
call and argue that speech technology is "ready to be deployed successfully
in second language education," and warn that the search for a theoretical
grounding of CALL systems can only lead to disappointment "when combined with
little or no knowledge of the underlying technology." While that claim is
certainly valid, the need to understand the limitations and capabilities afforded
by new technologies should not make us forget that such technical knowledge
must be complemented with an understanding of the pedagogical process of second
language learning. Theoretical discussions that compare the pedagogical effectiveness
of using CALL systems as tools or tutors (e.g., Higgins, 1988, Levy, 1997),
or alternatively, as open or closed systems (e.g., Crook, 1994; Wegerif &
Scrimshaw, 1997) provide a principled foundation for the use and assessment
of language-specific technological advances. Consequently, the chapters in
this volume provide readers with important perspectives on the implementation
of language technologies for second language teaching. The pedagogical possibilities
afforded by language technologies, however, can be most profitably evaluated
when the theoretical context discussed in the above-mentioned alternative
volumes is also taken into account.

- 24 -

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Rafael
Salaberry (Ph.D. 1997, Cornell University) is an Assistant Professor of
Spanish Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University. His research
interests include the second language acquisition of syntax and semantics,
second language teaching methodology, and computer mediated interaction. He
has published articles in several refereed journals such as Applied Linguistics,
CALICO, Canadian Modern Language Review, Modern Language Journal, and System.
He is the author of the book "Development of Past Tense Morphology in L2 Spanish"
(to be published by John Benjamins) and is currently co-editing a volume on
the acquisition of Spanish as a second language.